Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agencys missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agencys workings

It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career

Another [insider] says, You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation.

Among the many secrets still yet to be told about the Benghazi mission, is just how many Americans were there the night of the attack.

A source now tells CNN that number was 35, with as many as seven wounded, some seriously.

While it is still not known how many of them were CIA, a source tells CNN that 21 Americans were working in the building known as the annex, believed to be run by the agency.

Thirty-five Americans on the ground, 21 at the CIA annex. Maybe the skeletal security crew at the consulate wasnt as skeletal as thought. Is that what happened here  not so much a security vacuum as a security presence so secret that it couldnt be revealed publicly, despite the White House being pounded over its failures for months afterwards? None of which is to say that they shouldnt have had more security; the consulate and annex were overrun regardless, no matter how many people were there. But maybe that helps explain why the formal security presence wasnt bigger: There was a lot of CIA in the area and maybe the White House didnt want to attract attention to what they were doing there by inserting a squad of Marines to patrol the grounds. We already had an inkling of that, in fact, per this interesting but vague WSJ story from last November, which argued that the CIAs role in the city appeared to be more important than thought. (The consulate provided diplomatic cover for the classified CIA operations.) CNN itself followed up in May by reporting that the larger mission in Benghazi was covert and alleging that there were more Americans there tied to the CIA  20 of 30 in all  than to States diplomatic presence.

But what were they doing there to justify such agency paranoia now about people blabbing? Former CIA analyst Robert Baer tells CNN that agents are typically polygraphed ever few years, not every month. What could be so tippy top secret that it needs to be kept under wraps even if it means threatening agents families to buy their silence? On Twitter, Lachlan Markay points to this Business Insider piece, also from May, speculating that weapons were involved. Which isnt surprising  everyone knows the feds are trying to round up loose arms from Qaddafis stockpiles before jihadis get hold of them. Whats surprising is where the weapons might, might have been headed. To a depot back in the U.S.? Maybe not:

Also in October we reported the connection between Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who died in the attack, and a reported September shipment of SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles (i.e. MANPADS) and rocket-propelled grenades from Benghazi to Syria through southern Turkey.

That 400-ton shipment  the largest consignment of weapons yet for Syrian rebels  was organized by Abdelhakim Belhadj, who was the newly-appointed head of the Tripoli Military Council.

In March 2011 Stevens, the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan rebels, worked directly with Belhadj while he headed the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

Stevens last meeting on Sept. 11 was with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer in an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists.

Syrian rebels subsequently began shooting down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets with SA-7s akin to those in Qaddafis looted stock.

This theory seems sound enough to CNN that they actually mention it in todays bombshell, albeit as something thats being kicked around on the Hill. Is that what happened here? The White House decided to secretly start arming the rebels a year ago with the sort of SAMs that everyone fears might eventually be used to shoot down western airliners? Did Congress, or at least the intel committees, know about it? Do note: Even now, after the U.S. announced that it would arm the rebels openly last month, were supposedly withholding SAMs from them because theyre too dangerous. If the secret weapons shipments theory is true, then in fact weve been giving them the dangerous stuff for at least a year. Beyond that, anyone recognize the name Abdelhakim Belhadj? Ive written about him before. Belhadj is no moderate of the sort were allegedly working with within the rebel ranks. Hes a hardcore jihadi who fought with Bin Laden in Afghanistan. If he was the point man on helping to transfer dangerous weapons to the Syrian rebels, theres even less reason to think that they ended up in moderate hands rather than in the hands of the mujahedeen.

One other point. As far as I know, its a lingering mystery as to how the jihadis who attacked the consulate in Benghazi knew where the CIA annex was. The consulates a public presence so its a sitting duck. The annex kept a lower profile, even though it was close by, and yet the attackers zeroed in on it later in the evening of 9/11/12. Why? Could be it was as simple as knowing that there was another building in the neighborhood that had lots of Americans working at it and therefore that building was worth hitting too. Or maybe they just noticed suspicious traffic to the annex on the evening of the attack and decided to take a closer look. But if the secret weapons shipments theory is true, it could also be that bad actors in the city had actually dealt with the CIA there about getting arms to Syria and therefore knew full well where the annex was and who was inside. If thats what happened, its like Afghanistan in microcosm in terms of jihadis ultimately biting the American hand that fed them.

Our founding Fathers and others in the great revolution sacrificed much (and many all) to create this great country. It is hard to believe there isn’t one Patriot within the effected group who will risk all to open this package of lies.

And if we the internet people will keep pounding on the scandal, eventually the drug-addled obamaroid will be exposed as having been too zonked with drugs that night to respond. And hillahag thought she could hang his half-black ass out to dry by taking no leadership roll to cover for the pissant post turtle.

Just another day at the office for the Chicago thug-in-chief. Didn't some Austrian guy use the same tactics back in the 1930's? Looks like the current White House occupant studied something well enough to actually put it to use instead of the usual pretending to know what he's talking about.

11
posted on 08/04/2013 11:01:13 AM PDT
by jeffc
(The U.S. media are our enemy)

Giving weapons to Syrian rebels would be such a yawn for most American citizens the New York Times wouldn't even have to build ‘plausible’ excuses around it. The Washington Post wouldn't have to remind us that Bush sent people to the ME... first... or whatever.

The countries Obama would NOT want to be caught arming or selling information to would be: China, Iran, North Korea.

Polygraphing our own people implies Obama has a civil war happening within the CIA. Petraeus has the feel of being in the know... yet the Administration is leaving him alone... I assume he's with Obama.

My guess is what went down could look like treason ... might or might not be - but could look like it. Playing this hard with CIA and SEAL types required psyops, pressure, and lies on an unimaginable level.

The total load of 21,000 MANPADS included mostly SA-7's --old and very vulnerable to such simple countermeasures as flares. BELOW:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Sa-7.jpg

Also with the SA-7 featured above the target must be silhouetted against bare sky for the seeker to "see" the target. So if I'm a hilltop rebel trying to fire on a helicopter approaching from low in a valley using the SA-7 Grail, then forget it, the missile sees nothing, since there is a mountain behind him.

But After Reagan's air attack against Khadaffi (much later it turned out his daughter was not killed in the raid, as he'd claimed for many years), Khadaffi imported newer Soviet AA missiles, also, like the SA-24 Grinch, below, and THIS is the real problem:

It flies at Mach 2, reaches up above 10,000 feet, and the aircraft needn't be seen against empty sky for targeting. Also the Grinch needn't score a physical hit for detonation --it also comes equipped with proximity fusing, so if senses an impending bypass, it will still trigger. Also if there is remaining fuel, this, too, will be blown in the explosion as a kicker. Even with jamming and flares, about one in four Grinches will score a hit, generally.

What type of success might it get against commercial aircraft in their current form...? The Obama Admin does NOT want to talk about this at all.

Was this attack carried out by Iran and other Assad supporters who wanted to stop the flow of weapons to the terrorist? I think obama wanted to give shoulder fired rockets to the terrorist without the world finding out about it. He will catch a lot of flack if airplanes start falling out of the sky after being hit by rockets he gave the terrorist.

20
posted on 08/04/2013 12:05:50 PM PDT
by peeps36
(I'm Not A Racist, I Hate Douchebags f All Colors)

It is my way of showing that I reject his race card. It is the only card the fool knows how to play, so openly rejecting that card takes away an trump value he thinks it has. Being black is no disgrace, but claiming ‘blackness’ when he is more Arab than black is something the media has very strenuously avoided in their service to the regime destroying America. I’m not rejecting his race card as a strategy, I’m rejecting it as a way to slap his arrogant face.

I saw the Alex Jones segment up there. WE here at FR had the “heat-seeking missiles” story for....since a couple weeks after Bengazi. For us, it’s a very old story. Also for Drudge and some Brit newspapers.

The only new part is that CNN apparently succeeded in finding the office keys, logging onto their computers and REPORTING that “news”.

IMO there is nothing else new about the story, really.

The new questions are:

1. Did Bengazi have a black prison site

2. Did they at some point run across WMD’s smuggled out of Iraq or develop relationships with people who had them at some point

Okay. So Alex states the terror alert and embassy closings are because the news broke that Al Qeada was getting heat sinking missiles from Libya to fight Assad's regime in Syria. So they basically are wagging the terrorists now.

Is this because they expect Al Qeada to start using all the newly acquired toys in a massive attack ? Or is this because they simply want to cover up their involvement in helping Al Qeada acquire this munitions. Or could it be both ?

Or perhaps there is yet another possibility. The CNN story about the illegal arms transfers was broke because they expect Al Qeada to now start using them ?

Oh. You were being sarcastic. Did you notice my little smiley face ? You need to trend carefully around Alex here. Was just playfully slapping Ernie because I was surprised to see him of all people post that link. These are interesting times however.

I am going to say this one last time, mostly because no one pays attention and doesn't realize the continuing US pattern here, but also because I'm going to be gone for a little while and people will contine playing these guessing games because THAT is what they want you to do to keep you as far fom the truth as they can.

The cia contractors on the ground were doing their jobs like they ALWAYS do, The pre-op 'plan' didn't involve them so they were taken completely by surprise...just like the Sailors on the USS Cole. Had THAT plan worked, we would have lost a ship and many more American lives and no one will admit it was a quid pro quo, a payoff for a political favor from mubarak who wanted satisfaction for Egyptair.

Why? Because bill clinton wanted a nobel prize VERY badly and he thought he needed mubarak to achieve it.

In that case, the ship didn't go down, but all the reasons for the ship being there in the first place were ridiculous and untrue, Still, we blamed the whole thing on a couple of guys in a rubber dinghy.

In this case, (Benghazi,) we got a VERY high ranking al qaeda leader, ya ya al libi, a Libyan, so we had to pay reparations. An ambassador and a few Americans...IN Libya...which had THAT plan worked, would have been blamed on a video produced by Israel which would have put Israel on the hook for nearly 40 American lives.

The quid pro quo before THAT was a Chinook helicopter, Extortion 17, full of SEAL Team 6 members because SEAL Team 6 supposedly got bin laden. And they blamed THAT on a 'lucky shot' from a couple of taliban fighters who just happened to be in the right place at the right time. And exactly like the Cole, the pre-op made NO sense. Sudden changes, unknown persons on board, supposedly AFGHAN SOLDIERS, NOT PROVEN BECAUSE WONDER OF WONDERS, the manifest was wrong.

That's three. There are more. Are you seeing the pattern here? I can lead you to water....

Why did Hillary and Obama use US taxpayer funded personnel, equipment and facilities to overthrow the government of Libya? Why did Hillary and Obama produce and star in a commercial disparaging that phony video when they knew that video had nothing to do with what happened in Benghazi? Where is Qadaffi’s money?

42
posted on 08/04/2013 1:10:48 PM PDT
by blueunicorn6
("A crack shot and a good dancer")

The cia contractors on the ground were doing their jobs like they ALWAYS do, The pre-op 'plan' didn't involve them so they were taken completely by surprise... just like the Sailors on the USS Cole. Had THAT plan worked, we would have lost a ship and many more American lives and no one will admit it was a quid pro quo, a payoff for a political favor from mubarak who wanted satisfaction for Egyptair.

Why? Because bill clinton wanted a nobel prize VERY badly and he thought he needed mubarak to achieve it.

In that case, the ship didn't go down, but all the reasons for the ship being there in the first place were ridiculous and untrue, Still, we blamed the whole thing on a couple of guys in a rubber dinghy.

In this case, (Benghazi,) we got a VERY high ranking al qaeda leader, ya ya al libi, a Libyan, so we had to pay reparations. An ambassador and a few Americans...IN Libya...which had THAT plan worked, would have been blamed on a video produced by Israel which would have put Israel on the hook for nearly 40 American lives.

The quid pro quo before THAT was a Chinook helicopter, Extortion 17, full of SEAL Team 6 members because SEAL Team 6 supposedly got bin laden. And they blamed THAT on a 'lucky shot' from a couple of taliban fighters who just happened to be in the right place at the right time. And exactly like the Cole, the pre-op made NO sense. Sudden changes, unknown persons on board, supposedly AFGHAN SOLDIERS, NOT PROVEN BECAUSE WONDER OF WONDERS, the manifest was wrong.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.